- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE aforesaid writ petition arises out of an order dated 28-3- 2003 passed by the Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (Senior Division), Pilibhit in Execution Case No. 2 of 2000 and Execution Case No. 1 of 2000 in Rent Control Case No. 16 of 1990 in which an order of eviction against the petitioner was passed fixing 5- 4-2003 for orders in respect of damages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day for violation of clause 2 of the agreement. The facts of the case as culled out from the records are that respondent No. 2 filed Rent Case No. 16 of 1990 for release of the disputed accommodation. The petitioner moved an application- dated 12-9- 1991 for providing better particulars and details. Subsequently during the pendency of application under Section 27 (1) (A) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 an agreement was arrived at between the parties on 12-11- 1992. Relevant conditions for the purpose of decision of this case are: (i) Condition No. 1 - That tenant/petitioner shall vacate the premises in dispute and handed over the possession to the landlord on 1-1-2000. (ii) Condition No. 2.- If tenant/defendant has failed to vacate the premises in dispute then he can extend maximum period up 9 to one year 4 by the order of Court. (iii) Condition No. 4.- If defendant is violating condition Nos. 1 and 2 of the written agreement then defendant petitioner/tenant shall be liable to pay compensation Rs. 100/- per day to landlord. The aforesaid agreement was verified before the Court below on 19-11-1992. The Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (Senior Division), Pilibhit decided the rent case in terms of the compromise by order dated 7-1-1993 which was not challenged in any further Court proceedings and became final. Objections were raised by the petitioner against the aforesaid application on the ground that respondent No. 2 has not paid any rent, therefore, his application is liable to be rejected. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority by order dated 2-12-2002 rejected the application as infructuous. Accordingly the petitioner was granted time to vacate the accommodation in his possession up to 1-1-2000, as such the petitioner himself moved an application which was registered Misc. Application No. 173 of 1999 in Rent Control Case No. 16 of 1990 praying for extension of time as per condition No. 2 as quoted above.
(3.) THE landlord-respondent No. 2 filed the aforesaid Execution Case No. 2 of 2000, Rakesh Kumar v. Bhagwant Singh, against the petitioner before the Court below. THEreafter the Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (Senior Division) by order dated 28-3-2003 directed for execution of decree-dated 7-1-1993 and eviction of tenant petitioner fixing 5-3-2004 for further orders. The landlord obtained possession of the accommodation in pursuance of order dated 28-3-2003, however, arrears of rent and damages/compensation for violation of condition Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of the agreement dated 12-11-1992 could not be recovered by him for which 5-4-2003 had been fixed by the Court below.;